|
|
The leader and symbol of the Palestinian people is dead. His departure from
the political scene has far-reaching implications, particularly for
Israeli-Palestinian relations.
The official Israeli line for the past four years has been that there is no
Palestinian partner and that Yasser Arafat is persona non grata. Arafat
has been blamed for being personally involved in planning and encouraging terror
attacks. He has been accused of using funds donated by the European Union to
finance terrorist activity and of establishing close links with those “forces
of evil” — Iran and Iraq. There has also been criticism for mismanaging and
embezzling public resources and of using authoritarian methods to control the
Palestinian administration and security apparatus.
While some of these allegations are no doubt true, they have been disseminated
again and again by the Israeli government and media in order to create a
“no-partner” myth. This was designed to convince the world that Arafat
was an obstacle to peace, the major reason why the Oslo process collapsed.
Had it not been for Arafat, it was asserted, negotiations could have been
resumed, the cycle of violence broken and ultimately peace attained. World
leaders like Bush and Blair and many other shapers of public opinion all sang
from the same hymn sheet, helping to promote the notion that Arafat was the
primary hindrance to a just settlement.
Like every political myth, the “no-partner” one has been used to conceal
rather than to reveal. It aimed to obscure the fundamental grievances fueling
the conflict, namely that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 37
years and that the number of Jewish settlers actually doubled during the Oslo
process — the years Israel was ostensibly preparing to withdraw from the
territories.
The “no-partner” myth was also used to undercut basic Palestinian demands,
which Arafat represented: Israel’s full withdrawal to the 1967 borders, the
establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, and the recognition of
the rights of Palestinian refugees. Finally, it sought to destroy Arafat’s
persona, for he had become an international symbol of resistance, a symbol of
the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. And as the embodiment of this
struggle, he had managed to unify Palestinian society — both exiled and
occupied — and thus strengthen his people’s national identity.
This potent myth accordingly suggested that the escalating conflict was due to
the absence of a partner, rather than to Israel’s unwillingness to address
Palestinian grievances and demands.
Israel’s problem is that Arafat’s death will not resolve anything. The
reasons for the conflict will persist. Prime Minister Sharon must
therefore choose between two radically different courses of action. He can
decide to address Palestinian claims, which undoubtedly would entail painful
compromises by Israel but could eventually lead to peace in the region.
Alternatively, he can fashion a new myth, one that would again divert the
public’s gaze from the real issues, and enable Israel to continue
expropriating Palestinian land and destroying the population’s infrastructure
of existence. This latter option is the one Sharon will most likely embrace. The
question then becomes: What new myth will be created?
Neve Gordon teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University, Israel, and is editor of From the Margins of Globalization: Critical Perspectives on Human Rights (Rowman and Littlefield September 2004). He can be reached at neve_gordon@yahoo.com
|
To
send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click
here |